Actitud proambiental: ser propositivo y resolutivo ante problemáticas

This thesis is located in the domain of interactive design research. Interactive design, also known as ‘user experience design’ or human computer interaction (HCI), is a field that is concerned with users’ experiences of an interface. An interface is the communication layer between a user and digital communication technology. Theoretical knowledge about the user is applied to improve the design

of interfaces (Tognazzini 2006). Interactive design research is often inter- disciplinary, in particular drawing inspiration from the fields of sociology and psychology. The aim of this research is to provide insight into how people experience and understand their worlds, which can then be applied to the development of interfaces. The links between HCI research and commercial industry have been strong and often the success of HCI has been determined by the achievement of ‘better’ interface products that support ‘better’ business imperatives. Solutions are required within business constraints, pressures and timelines. This has led to a practice that has an acceptance of business and commercial values (Blythe 2008) such as efficiency and expediency. Clarke et al. (2006a) point out that in practice, users prefer systems designed around relevant processes embedded in existing procedures, even if these systems take more time.

All types of interactive design strategies make assumptions about what a user might want and how much agency a user has. This in turn affects how trust- enabling a digital environment can be. Interactive design strategies also make assumptions about the relationship between user and designer. The more separate the roles, the less agency the user has to make fundamental changes to how an environment is formed and how it responds to needs as a project matures.

Computer interface design has been evolving since the 1950s. Interfaces were made by and for hardware engineers. As technology developed in the 1960s and 1970s, the development of higher-level programming allowed software engineers to develop software without dealing with the underlying hardware. The interface had started to become important, however the focus was on ergonomic issues such as keyboard and monitor layout. In the 1980s, the first ‘non-I.T professionals’ began using computers as end users at terminals, for instance using word processors. In this era, cursory understandings were made regarding the contexts in which the systems were to be deployed. This resulted in system developers making the same mistakes, but faster. I.T developed a reputation for creating systems that were hard for people to use (as acknowledged in Grinter 2000).

In the 1990s, several strands of development emerged. In some areas, interface design became viewed as a dialogue between user and machine.

Technology design is now entering a third phase, where technology is colonising the social context, and providing spaces where people can communicate in a wide variety of digital contexts. For instance, a form of video conferencing is now used for individuals to participate in online dating. Theoretical design developments concerning technology have not kept pace with technical development. A lot of work still needs to be done and the area remains problematic. There are still fundamental interface design issues to resolve even though new products are being developed. This is evident because system ‘failure’ remains a common theme in I.T. development (Glen 2002). Large amounts of money are lost as managers consider technology as a problem disconnected from business concerns and struggle to understand how innovation and I.T. can be administrated. From this starting point, it is difficult for the perspective of a user to be able to be embraced. It is apparent that systems have not always conferred the benefits expected from them by those who have commissioned them (Grudin 1990).

In turn, this led to an interest in what social science might be able to do in relation to design, and more particularly what ethnographic and ethnomethodological approaches can offer. This shift can be dated approximately from the publication of Lucy Suchman’s book, Plans and Situated Actions, in 1987 and subsequently from a number of design-related studies conducted in Europe and the USA (see for instance, Hughes et al. 1992, 1993; Heath and Luff (1991, 1992). The foundation of this work was a demand for a more ‘situated’ or contextual take on workplace routines. Over a period of time, this led to the development of the field called ‘Computer Supported Cooperative Work’, which is largely characterised by an interest in new methods, computer mediated communication, and the coordination of complex workflows in command and control centres of one kind or another.

There might be many reasons for the failure of technology to deliver on its promises. Although massive resources have been devoted to create the vision of ubiquitous converged computing, this has not as yet been achieved. Greenfield (cited in Shute 2009) claims that ‘we don’t do “smart” very well yet’ because the creation of this type of computing involves problems that are hard to solve. Rogers (2009) argues that this is because the mainstream view of convergence is

developing in a direction that clashes with how humans work best. Instead, she maintains that convergence should seek to support human endeavours rather than trying to create an environment where humans do as little as possible. Furthermore, Bødker (2007) calls for more questioning of what convergence means. He claims that the question for the present is not merely ‘how we experience through technology’ but also ‘how we experience technology’ (Bødker 2007).

Nevertheless, if Grudin (1990) was right in his assertion that the computer was ‘reaching out’, and Hughes et al. (1994) that design innovation needed to ‘move out of the control room’, then we are now arguably in a third phase, one which involves moving out of the workplace altogether. A lot has happened to justify this, including the rapid development of the Web and huge increases in computing power that allow casual use of images and movies. New methods for understanding the internet are generated by the enhanced possibilities inherent in mobile devices, and new semantic possibilities (so-called Web 2.0 applications, which entail the use of semantic structures like folksonomies and ontologies). This has in effect been the motive behind the growth of ‘interactive design’.

An important part of interactive design has been the understanding of design situations. Thus there is a well-developed body of methods that suggests how to gather primary information to inform design. These methods include both qualitative and quantitative techniques. There are strong links between HCI research and the commercial industry (Knouf 2009). Often the success of HCI has been determined by the achievement of interface products that support business imperatives within business constraints, pressures and timelines. This commercial pressure has led to a design practice influenced by business and commercial values (Blythe et al. 2008) such as efficiency and expediency.